The Ever-Changing Political Landscape in Guyana

by Abu Bakr

The Guyana Third Force (GTF) has fallen down, and cracks on the stones of its internal contradictions. But let us still, in a final access of hope, believe that out of the promiscuity of the new political alliances there will come something new and pregnant with good for the country.

Though we also concede that we no longer believe in unity for the sake of uniting. The keys to success, it now appears, are concordance and consistency. As such, for any future alliance, we expect that the positions held or hoped for on the day of its birth and in the season of innocence may be consistent and immutable. For it is possible that a mixture of disparate elements may lead to new disappointments.

We have to bear in mind that the big break of the fifties, when Cheddie and Burnham split, was catastrophic for our nation. As men board the ship, horns have to be examined, which is to say that the ideological principles in their details, that strategy, that tactics in their minutiae, have to be declared and agreed upon or we will have, sooner or later, another case such as Paul Hardy’s departure over the question of including the PNC (or PPP) in the Tent.

Certainty may elude us. We need to state somewhere that our politicians and our politics are in a constant state of mutation.

The AFC is under attack by WPA International Secretary Dr. David Hinds. ACDA is calling on Guyanese of African descent to boycott this year’s general elections. Sheila Holder and Khemraj Ramjattan remain riveted to their parliamentary seats as Raphael Trotman differentiates himself from them both and declares his mission in the House accomplished.

We must accustom ourselves to the soap-operatic nature of some recent developments by bearing in mind that our political figures moult and mutate even as the electorate is expected, come polling day, to demonstrate the sort of stasis that limits its participation to the simplicity of an ethnic vote. In sum, the politicians change, the global context is transformed and the domestic economic and social environment is in flux – only the electorate is feared to be unchanging and unchangeable.

Let us recall past events

The PPP and PNC have exchanged roles in relation to power sharing. While Dr. Jagan was championing the government of National Reconciliation from the cold waters of the wilderness, the PNC in government had to calculate the cost of bringing a communist on board. Arguably, it would not have been pragmatic before 1989 and the end of the Cold War.

On this question, the PNC and ACDA have now seen another light. They want power sharing. Eyes have been opened. Democratic ideas are re-discovered. Principles of equity are invoked. But for none of these reasons, and for reasons known only to itself, The United Force, now TUF, has taken bed and board with the PPP, which used to be its ideological nemesis.

The WPA is in a GTF, which features ROAR, the antithesis of the non-racial politics that is supposed to be its trademark. And as it is with the parties, so it is with some personalities. Errants, they are to be observed of late wandering from benab to bungalow in search of the magic potion or membership of the winning team as barkered in the big fairground that the political stage has become.

We have therefore to conclude that some of our politicians seem to mature late or not at all. Forcing us to ask, “What is the motive force that animates and excites some public figures in the arena?” Moses Nagamootoo, having reached his “fork in the road,” to use Emile Mervin’s reference, has apparently decided to return to the beaten track of the PPP.

The question we have to ask about the combined third force (GTF & AFC) is whether some of the ex-PPP members like Khemraj Ramjattan or those who aspired to membership of the PPP like Ravi Dev, were powered essentially by despair of ever changing that party from inside.

Let us be frank, Dev’s progress as a politician could have taken place in the PPP. He was trying for a role in the party he now describes as anti-Indian, anti-democratic and anti-progress. Nagamootoo was quite content in the PPP until he was sidelined in the leadership race. Nagamootoo, again, was quite content to be the designated heir and has several times made the point. He was not talking about the democratic process (even though he got the most votes at a party meeting to choose a candidate), he was talking about being chosen, nominated, by Cheddi.

Trotman, a one-time leadership candidate for the PNC, may similarly be a case of hopes for internal change frustrated. Or, inevitably, the “supremo syndrome.” Like Burnham said once “Top dog (leader) or nothing.” He then left to form his own party.

Dr. Cheddi Jagan, president for life of his own outfit, left as his legacy a kind of nepotism. The throne, he mutters on his deathbed, stays in the family, with Janet as successor. Joey is no doubt dreaming to take her place. His rise blocked or unable to effect the needed internal changes, he formed his own party.

Peter Ramsaroop has, to state it tactfully, been in and out of the PNC. Eyes open only when he saw the beast up real close. (Can we then fault our electorate for their blindness to the vices of the two behemoths, PPP and PNC, when many now offering the alternative also drank of the bitter cup of those two parties.)

A review of some of this also reveals that we have got to question the democratic credentials of the “charismatic” figures in the political history. It reveals, we repeat, that some of our politicians mature late or not at all. Their eyes open when the hammer falls – or in some cases, when they leave the smooth highway of the government career for the rough road of opposition. Some of our politicians are slowly but constantly “morphing” before our very eyes. We end up sometimes with snakes in dove’s feathers. Half wolf, half sheep

As each man boards the ship of a new alliance with his baggage, the ideological content has to be examined and the declaration of political goods brought aboard carefully read, or we may end up with mutinies over the route to be sailed to the port of destination.

It’s Time For Some Tough Love

by Keith R. Williams

Whenever we proceed to analyse our current political and socio/economic situation and the circumstances that caused them to come into being, we are usually sparing in our criticism and condemnation of the general populace and our participation in the whole debacle.

It is as if “we the people” are innocent victims, lured into following the egotistical directions of our own political Pied Pipers of Hamlin. That “we the people” were conned, taken advantage of, induced into acting against our best self interest and the interest of the Nation, are the implications. The implication is that we did not land in Guyana on various occasions under various circumstances, but rather, Guyana landed on us on various occasions under various circumstances.

Well I for one believe that it is time for our politicians, and I mean those who genuinely seek to change the political environment, to begin treating our populace to some tough love. It is time to look them unwaveringly in the eye and say, “Look, the fact that we have a sh*tty political system and a bankruptcy in ethics and morality among the leadership you have had so far does not have to confine you to a political wheelchair,” or words to that effect.

The only way Guyana is ever going to be able to make that journey to a better place, is for the people to rise up and take back control over their present and future from those who have been pleasuring themselves with it over the past five decades.

I am sorry if my way of putting things offends the sensibilities of some who will read this, and for that I fervently apologise before hand. However, it is difficult to find a more appropriate description for the relationship and interaction between the populace of Guyana and those who have been at the rudder from the beginning of our political voyage.

Someone posting in our forum described an aspect of this relationship as that of an abused woman refusing to leave the side of her abuser. I believe that description is applicable to the nation in its entirety, and that the language of love with which to sever abused from abuser has to be straight and tough.

Malcolm X stood before his African American brethren and sistren in Harlem and harangued them to “get off that crack, get off that cocaine, get off that welfare.” He was demanding that they arise; that they get up and take control of the burdens that had fallen upon them due to some circumstances or the other. That they do not continue to lie in the gutter with the expectation that the forces that had circumstanced them being there, were going to pass by and pick them up.

There is a limit to how long anyone can wallow in the psychology of victim-hood. There comes a time when one has to “arise, to take up ones bed,” and to proceed onward towards taking control of ones destiny. That time is now for Guyanese.

To say that the two main population groups in Guyana have become slaves to the politics of their respective parties is not a stretch in terms of describing the relationships, nor should either group take it as an insult. If once every five or so years you get up in the morning like a robot, take yourself down to a polling booth and mark an X next to a name or symbol because of the racial make up of the organisation rather than platform policies designed to better your lot, then I figure that you are behaving as though you were on a plantation during the eighteenth century.

When those organizations in question, covertly and overtly court, encourage and nurture the tenure of such a relationship, then they are engaged in the process of making and keeping political slaves.

In a speech delivered on the banks of the James River in the colony of Virginia in 1712, the infamous Willie Lynch, a British Slave owner and the person whose name describes a form of mob justice, advised his audience among other things that it is, “NECESSARY THAT YOUR SLAVES TRUST AND DEPEND ON US. THEY MUST LOVE, RESPECT AND TRUST ONLY US.” The sometimes hidden, sometimes blatantly obvious messages conveyed to the constituents of either of Guyana’s two main political organizations are exactly the same.

One party says, “We are the only ones who can protect you from the violent criminality of them,” while the other party says, “We are the only ones who can ensure that you have an equal share of the national pie.” After fifty years this situation is no longer a speculative analysis about the motivation behind people’s actions at the polls. It is, rather, a predictable electoral behaviour, sorry to say, and an indictment of the moral will power of “we the people.”

As long as we continue to pander to the psychology of victim-hood that allows the population of Guyana to shunt the entire blame for the political present upon the shoulders of Burnham and Jagan and their respective parties, they will remain attached to the political plantations they currently occupy. For under these circumstances, there is no incentive or encouragement for them to look deeply into themselves beyond the layer of protection provided by the assignment of all blame to nationally acceptable villains.

I am not remotely suggesting that somehow this reasoning mitigates the guilt of “the plantation owners,” so to speak. Lord knows they worked assiduously to sow the seeds of enmity between the two groups. Maybe they had read Lynch’s piece where he opined, “Don’t forget, you must pitch the OLD black male vs. the YOUNG black male, and the YOUNG black male against the OLD black male. You must use the DARK skin slaves vs. the LIGHT skin slaves. But it is NECESSARY THAT YOUR SLAVES TRUST AND DEPEND ON US. THEY MUST LOVE, RESPECT AND TRUST ONLY US. Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity. IF USED INTENSELY FOR ONE YEAR, THE SLAVES THEMSELVES WILL REMAIN PERPETUALLY DISTRUSTFUL…”

Change those descriptions to those that reflect the opposing groups in Guyana and the instructions could not have been more relevant. Still, the fact remains that this has been going on for an eternity and “we the people” can no longer be given a pass. The population as a whole, Indian, African et al, have to assume a measure of responsibility for our current state.

“All the kings horses and all the kings men could not put humpty-dumpty together again”
after he had fallen off the wall and broke into several little pieces. And all of the well-meaning politicians that are working feverishly and conscientiously to bring change to our nation face the same challenges that confronted “All the kings horses and all the kings men.”

Guyana is broken politically. We have fallen off the wall of stability, rationality and commonsense. And we cannot be put back together solely by the well-meaning efforts of the politicians on the frontline. “It will take a village” as they say in Africa. There has to be an awakening in the consciousness of the Guyanese electorate and the bucket of cold water to accomplish this will come in the form of being confronted with the harsh realities of our situation, and the fact that we are not merely innocent participants in its deterioration.

We are the ones who determine who will win, who will rule, who will be allowed to get away with what. If it requires some tough love to get us to that intersection where reality and an awakening sense of responsibility collide, then I say, go for it. Nothing else seems to be working anyway.

The REA as a modern instrument of National Reform

by Dr. Christopher A. Johnson

In an article dated 18th December 2005 in this publication, mention was made of the importance of another structural tier to complement the existing Regional Democratic Council (RDC). On that occasion, we alluded to the primary aim of the RDC – to allow for active participation by the citizenry in the democratic process. The creation of Regional Enterprise Agencies represents a modern instrument of economic development to boost further reforms in Guyana.

In its current form, the RDC has been criticised for its historic flaws: too politicised, unadaptive, inflexible and unable to articulate a consistent economic and social policy conducive to the demands of local communities. The REA system has a comparative advantage from a policy instrument perspective, since philosophically; it avoids the pitfalls of ideological correctness in an environment where expediency tends to be outweighed by the imperatives of market forces.

Within reason, REAs can be integrated in the constitutional provisions, including the 1996 reforms under the Local Government Act. Detailed parameters of this initiative can be set out, along with the necessary institutional arrangements that required ensuring that it works coherently. REAs can facilitate space for various organisations, agencies and groups to take part in enterprise activities and events and are designed to promote regional co-operation among diverse communities. The suggested format for the REA system is wide and varied, but it represents nevertheless, a logical step towards broadening the scope of regional democracy.

Legislative Process

It is proposed that, as a start, the authority responsible for Local Government or Regional Affairs, should devise a Concept Paper after extensive discussions with interested parties – business, education, training, social, cultural among others. A Bill outlining terms of reference for the RDA system and principled aims and objectives, should be framed for debate in Parliament. The legislation should cover too, a clear timetable and a feedback mechanism.

At the end of the consultation process, roadshow seminars should be organised to promote this initiative especially to rural parts of Guyana. Once approved, the Bill should have cross- Party support and feed into the views of experts to strengthen its legislative framework. The legislation should then be given a gestation period of 8-10 months before actual implementation, during which time, there will be reflection and consideration of emerging views from the Regions, as well as an opportunity for clarification.

The implementation of the REA Bill should allow for further pre-testing of delivery and this means that piloting the initiative in at least six Regions – 2, 3,4,5,6 and 10 respectively – where more than 70 percent of Guyana’s productive sectors are located. This is approach is crucial for success of the REA system. Naturally, these pilots will test the efficiency and effectiveness of the new structure and its impact on communities in selected Regions. An evaluation of each pilot should be carried out; measuring outcomes and outputs, since each Region may have unique features along political, economic, social and cultural lines. Different methods of intervention would be required to determine the results or outcomes of this initiative.

The REA Implementation

The implementation of the REA system is sine qui non to regional liberalisation. It tests the Establishment’s `fairness doctrine’ as it applies to local government politics. It offers fresh impetus for the creation of regional excellence models and stimulates a series of innovations underpinned by education, training and social (investment) provision. It frees spare capacity for infrastructure, labour and other resources within each of the 10 Administrative Regions. In effect, it offers maximum advantage for growth and development all round, not forgetting value for money. The REA will enable skills retention, increased growth of new local economies, improved managerial competence, accountability and enhanced fiscal discipline.

From a practical standpoint, the REA system is premised on a fundamental shift of economic policy aimed at citizens in far-flung areas who will be the main beneficiaries in accessing manifold opportunities through the creation of enterprise and entrepreneurship activities in the Regions. The challenge in all of this, will be the medium-term impact, apart from its lasting benefits. The current RDC system is limited in scope for a real economic breakthrough for regional viability. So then, what are the implications and how will it translate into meaningful benefits for both the `haves’ and have-nots’? The following implications of the REA are possible:

1. Its structural framework will have to adapt to the variations and variables in each of the 10 Administrative Regions.
2. Though qualitative and quantitative in character, aims and objectives should demonstrate the intention of improving production and productivity yields. Realism should prevail rather than flawed assumptions of one type or another.
3. REAs activity profile should be specific and tailored to meet the demands of the regional populace. Accurate information and reliable data are necessary to ensure that programmes are not overly ambitious or based on the whim of partisan interests.
4. The management structure should reflect an array of legal composites; namely, limited companies with charitable objectives, social enterprises or quasi-corporate entities less share holding and profit motive considerations or tendencies. Boards with multidisciplinary foci should be instituted and balanced by executives. These personnel should have considerable experience in economic affairs, regeneration, business management, project development, financial and accounting, as well as relevant cultural and social skills. There should be scope for a sub-regional element to take care of larger regions such as those found in the Berbice and Essequibo counties. Sub-regional Chairs should be appointed to sit on Regional Boards to ensure sound decision making and realistic programme delivery.
5. Apart from the ideological flexibility, possibly the greatest challenge, will be the political will of Central Government; that is, testing the Executive’s long-term commitment to additional reform to reinvigorate the national economy through the creative use, and application of modern approaches to local governance to bring about greater prosperity and stability in deprived and excluded communities in Guyana.
6. The REA system will contribute to economic buoyancy through additional jobs, new skills, innovation, technology developments, improved physical infrastructure, confidence and a morale boost for citizens.
7. Partnership working would be further enhanced, with better co-ordination and the harmonisation of various segments of the Guyanese economy. Increased procurement and tender opportunities will benefit micro firms and social enterprises. The challenge for large companies will be how to `play ball’ within the regional context.
8. Equality and equity standards (for everyone irrespective of race, class or creed) would also be tested to the hilt.

Ultimately, the REA system will demonstrate the validity of its actual creation. Would it be seen as another legislative hurdle to implement? Would it be regarded as another tool of economic expediency? Would it be considered an invaluable instrument for unleashing the potential of citizens in poor districts and neighbourhood-villages in Guyana? The answer to these questions would be judged by the desperate need to spur economic growth by implementing practical and responsible reform measures, whilst balancing the risk of current economic necessity with quaint ideological models.

Yet, this is an opportune moment for Guyana to harness the necessary resources to generate sustainable development. That is why it is important to have a constructive debate on a Regional Enterprise Agency system to strengthen economic governance in 21st century Guyana.

DECISION 2006 (Part 3): Searching for a Private Sector Policy

by Emile Mervin

As if in a desperate attempt to revitalise a moribund economy after thirteen years of the PPP/C being in power, President Bharrat Jagdeo, last year, concocted an ‘open market’ policy offer for the local private sector to consider if it can come up with a proposed draft to make such a policy workable.

No one seems to know whether the government, in subsequent weeks or months, secretly solicited input from local business operatives on how the private sector can be used as the primary engine for economic recovery and growth, or what has been the private sector’s response, if any, but logic says the end product of the President’s proposal was supposed to result in a blueprint for dealing with a problem set to dominate Guyana’s domestic policy for the foreseeable future: the economy.

To some, it was startling news that the President was finally warming to a policy position on the economy outside the absolute control of government. To others, however, it was an official admission of failure of humungous proportions thirteen years late, given that this government came into power fully aware that the economy was the number one concern of the suffering masses and that it alone did not have the requisite resources to effect a turnaround in the nation’s fortunes.

The reason for this paralysis seems to rest with the government’s obsession with securing power instead of a needed analysis of the more pressing problem – people’s basic needs – and the possible solutions.

This private sector-economic policy vacuum encouraged the flourishing drug trade and its related money laundering practices as a parallel structure that literally hammered the private sector into the ground. Inadvertently helping to also exploit this lack of a vibrant private sector policy and stifle the private sector was the barrel syndrome, which has been used as a means by recipients to resell their freebies.

By comparison, promoting rapprochement with the private sector was in sync with the late President Desmond Hoyte’s about-face views that favored open market policies over state-controlled. And even though it seems to come 13 years late, in the interest of saving the nation, this government should be stridently engaging the private sector in a constructive dialogue, just as it spent time engaging the opposition PNC in those post-election dialogues that yielded nothing other than cessation of street demonstrations.

But it is becoming distressingly obvious that the government and the private sector are not on the same page, perhaps indicating differences in strategies on what is supposed to be a fundamental and mutually shared understanding of the economic situation in Guyana.

Advocates of change in strategy argue that the economy is perilously poised between negligible growth and stagnation, while promoters of the existing approach insist it is doing just fine, thank you. While both cannot be right or wrong at the same time, the ball is not in the court of advocates of change or promoters of the status quo, but with a government that has shown resilience in its daring bid to solidly entrench itself in power as a matter of priority over the economic needs of the nation.

While the government appears to be finally seeing the economy through the prism that was used as a reason for asking voters to put it in office in 1992, it is not a government that is dependent on economic success or failure to be returned to office. It is dependent, quite unfortunately, on an internal mechanism called feeding into and off of the ethnic insecurity of its primary support base.

That is not the only internal mechanism available in the political playpen for others to consider in their bid to produce changes desired both by the people of Guyana and the major civil society institutions led by the private sector. No political party in Guyana can afford to equivocate on the private sector and still expect to get in office to bring about needed changes. Any party that seriously wants to bring about change in the economy has to find ways to complement the private sector’s vision and interests with an outlined policy position, from Jump Street.

Whatever the outcome of the coming Guyana elections, anyone with knowledge of the Guyana economic situation would know that a majority of Guyanese is unhappy with the status quo. Even Guyanese abroad share that discontentment, and everyone shares an interest in promoting genuine change in Guyana. But that shared interest does not necessarily mean that Guyanese voters would readily give the ship of state to a captain who does not identify with and promote the private sector as the engine for economic recovery and growth.

Guyana is passing through a 40-year phase in which divergent interest groups conflict or complement each other, but only those serious-minded Guyanese would know which groups genuinely represent their interests as opposed to some narrow, partisan interest that does not cater to Guyanese. The private sector is one group that is consumer-oriented, so all it needs is to team up with a people-oriented political party for change.

Today, Guyana has two major parties, with one – the PPPC – enjoying popular support among Indian Guyanese, all because it did its homework appeasing its core constituents as the only major party capable of withstanding the hated alternative. But what about the core constituents of the hated alternative who share the same bread and butter needs as its Indian counterparts? Is this upcoming election going to be all about votes and securing power or is it about bread and butter issues that cut across ethnic/racial lines?

Rather than the President hastily concocting a half-baked proposal, whether reeking of desperation or playing with people’s minds, to fill the vacuum created by the absence of a working policy position on the economy with the private sector as the main engine, he and all presidential contenders should use this upcoming campaign to do some in-depth debates publicly on this economic issue, thereby allowing Guyanese to obtain a more realistic or pragmatic understanding of the economy as truly deserving of a serious policy position.

Political success for parties at the polls should not stop there, but be extended into the social and economic structural settings, and a vibrant policy framework can only help. Any party that scores a win at elections, yet fails on the economy, is still a failure, so go figure what is happening right now.

Observations and Advice for the Campaign Trail

by Carl Franklin

Many political observers believe our nation’s worsening social, economic and political situation may force Guyanese voters, for the first time since 1953, to vote on issues rather than by race when electing their leaders during this year’s general elections. Consequently, observers have called on the opposition to craft a campaign that would focus on economic and social issues rather than on race, which is universally acknowledged as the major cause of our nation’s problems.

Given my agreement with the call for a focus on issues, I offer some observations and advice for the campaign trail.

First, there is nothing new or revolutionary about the call for candidates to focus on issues in the hope that voters will vote based on issues rather than on race. Despite the indisputable evidence of appeals for race-based voting on their part, both the PPP and the PNC have routinely employed the Campaign 101 principle of appealing for issues-based votes.

Second, voters will not necessarily be impressed with just any issue or idea other than race, particularly because all the parties will be talking about issues and ideas. Therefore, voters will want to know exactly why they should vote differently. Thus, voters will have to be told that they cannot trust messengers who are promising to undo conditions that they have had the power to undo for more than 50 years, but have instead chosen to perpetuate through their steadfast refusal to set up frameworks, procedures and institutions that would give voters the confidence needed to entrust their and their children’s future to better qualified and more competent persons outside their race or incompetent party.

Third, candidates should not immediately assume they know what is best for voters. Different people have different needs that are dictated by different worldviews and areas of residence. What is considered a major priority in one place or in one family may turn out to be a minor priority in another place or in another family. So the voters must be consulted in order to determine their real needs and priorities. It must never be forgotten that some people do not view improving their economic condition as their number one priority. In the last U.S. presidential elections, many poor African-Americans voted for George Bush because he promised to ban marriage between homosexuals. They were not impressed by John Kerry’s message of increased economic opportunities. To those persons, the religious imperative was more important.

Fourth, parties cannot afford to delay crafting and communicating their messages. It was Shakespeare who said, “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.” If it is truly believed that there is currently a sentiment for change in our nation, then the work to effect that change must begin immediately (it should have already been in full flow). Chosen methods and strategies for getting out the identified messages should be put to use without delay. It must be understood that this will be no easy task, for efforts will have to be directed at every village and town. The early bird will catch the worm. Remember, the elections can be held before August.

Fifth, (and this probably would be repudiated because of our past experiences) charismatic personalities are needed to lead the way. The Stabroek News recently reported that though the government may not be scoring points with the populace, President Jagdeo’s personal appeal has not waned. I believe we must face the reality that charismatic figures are best suited to effect changes in hearts and minds in an environment like ours. Some think of Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan and believe that charisma is anathema. But why not think of Walter Rodney, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Mahatma Gandhi? Yes, there are charismatic people who are altruistic to the bone.

Sixth, campaigns have to be carefully planned, with unfailing attention to the prevailing socio-economic conditions and their contributory factors, as well as a full understanding of the message and capabilities of the opponent. The opponent’s capabilities and messages must be countered. It is routine for professional sports team to go into a game (campaign) with a game-specific plan. The plan considers the team’s players, the opponent’s players and the weather and field conditions (socio-economic conditions). Each of these factors will affect the team’s execution of its plan at various stages of the game. Teams even consider which referee/umpire/judge (media) will officiate (cover) the game and the impact of the crowd (voters). It should be no different in a well-run political campaign.

Seventh, victory will not be won merely by drafting the best plans, which, apart from being cognizant of the existing conditions, should be focused on exposing or exploiting the weaknesses of the opponent. Victory is ultimately dependent on how the best plans are executed. Committed, disciplined, team-oriented players will be needed for the execution phase. Careful attention has to be paid to each operative to ensure that he/she is not hindering the effective execution of the plans. If anyone is deemed to be a hindrance, a substitution or a reduced role may be necessary, as is done on sports teams. However, potential problems in execution must be identified before game day. This is ideally done during practice (brainstorming and devil’s advocate) sessions.

Eighth, victory is not assured until the elections results are declared. So no one should be carried away by reports of the voters’ discontent with the government. Voters may be discontented with the government, but that discontentment does not automatically translate into a preference for another government.

The main point is this, the door to the halls of power stands ajar, and it can be forced off its hinges by urgently delivered issues-oriented messages.